Nikon comments on the D700 leak – they confirm the rumor!

"As usual, we were told no comments for now, but that Nikon "will say more when the date draws near". The spokesperson did volunteer that the pictures were taken at the agency where the brochures were printed."

Wow. I can’t say the typical “soo excited, omg omg!!!” because we all saw this camera coming a mile away, despite the nay-sayers. A D3 sensor in a D300.

I don’t even know if it’ll be worth it to me within the next year or two. My D300 is already doing a good enough job, and Nikon’s lack of a solid lens lineup still leaves Canon as the choice for discerning full-frame shooting professionals. Of course I expect Nikon to remedy that, but like I said it’ll probably be a year or two before I’m REALLY interested in the D700. Might even get a D400 when it comes out…

=Matt=

mw

“Nikon’s lack of a solid lens lineup”…if Nikon has anything it does have a very solid lens lineup…??

Dan

Haha, yeah. Not even Canon’s primes can beat Nikon’s new wide angle zooms.They haven’t got a competitor for 105VR nor any of the PC Nikkor neither.

http://www.olhares.com/camil0 Camilo

well… If you test Nikon D3 with 70-200 2.8 VR you’ll be disapointed with the results in the corners of image…!this lens, having a cost of something around $1800, should be more reliable in the FX sensor… but it gets soften at the edges of the image… so, canon is ahead in the race when it concerns to lens for Full Frame… But, when we’re talking about high ISO settings, and I really mean High like ISO 3200 and 6400, it can’t get any better then the D3!! =)Of course, the prototypes of D3H can achieve ISO 51.200 with excelente quality for this ISO, but still it’s a prototype..! Look for “D3H samples” and “D3X samples” at youtube… you’ll be amazed at what nikon is developing with it’s new prototypes…!

I own a D3 and all I have to say is that the only big lack for it is not to have ISO 100 at lowest base ISO settings.. you have to push to Low1 to get that false ISO 100… But that’s the price for having excelent results at high ISO performances…!

This Nikon D700 looks really interesting for those who don’t like to carry to much wheight and don’t need 9FPS…!

Still, let it come we can see what it really can do for less $1000 or so…!

Blog Admin

You should not believe a word in those youtube video – this guy is famous for his pranks (known also as Darth Vader). I know it is funny to hear that on a rumor site, but is true. The difference is that we do not create the information we publish, he does. I just wonder where he gets the money for his equipment.

http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

I’m sorry, I should be more specific. Indeed, for many applications Nikon has by far the best lens lineup. The 14-24 is un-paralleled, the 24-70 trounces Canon’s, and, the 70-200, …oops wait nevermind, but it IS freaking sweet on DX.

Where it gets abysmal is with f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8 primes. F/1.2 doesn’t exist for Nikon other than manual focus, all the f/1.4 lenses are AF-D and one of them is discontinued, oh and one of them is still manual focus too. The f/1.8 lenses are there and the 85 1.8 is stellar, but that’s about all you can say without getting nasty.

So, Nikon’s PRIME lens lineup is VERY lacking, I should say.

But, we should see updates / re-makes of most ALL of these lenses within the next year or two.

My point was that for FX to be desirable for me, Nikon is going to have to make more fast primes, an AF-S wide angle f/1.4 or f/1.8, an AF-S 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.4, and an AF-S 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, or an 85mm f/2 VR? I dunno. I just ain’t buying into the FX system until the advantages are REALLY there…

=Matt=

http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

Zooms don’t compete with primes. In this day and age, you use a prime for two reasons: The fast aperture and/or the size / weight.

Nikon’s 14-24 and 24-70 may be the best 2.8 zooms in the world. But the ONLY f/1.2 lens ever made is from 1981, as is the 35 1.4, and both are manual focus. We haven’t seen the 28 1.4 AF since 2005, and the 85 1.4 plus ALL other f/1.x primes are still AF-D even though Nikon has left AF-D out of it’s beginner bodies since 2006.

Ouch.

=Matt=

http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

Joseph Spina has to be one of the WEIRDEST characters in the entire world of photography on the internet. He thinks that NAS stands for Nikon Amateur Service. LOL.

Seeing that he quotes that he goes to Brooks and is still age 20, I’d suspect that he gets all his gear via student loans, or he’s simply checking it out from a rental dept.

=Matt=

Al Schreitmueller

Saw a reference to FPS. Didn’t see in the “leaked” slicks. 6/8 FPS like the 300 is a good guess, but anything more solid than that?

D300 vs D700 – if it carries the D3 capability on, that’s worth an extra F/stop – about $1000 per lens, and you get it in the body to the benefit of all your lenses.

Blog Admin

I just hope we will see some primes sooner that 1-2 years.

MickMcMahon

The two PC-E lenses appear to be on the top animated graphic of the Nikon UK website. Guess this confirms it.I am disappointed though as I would have preferred a few AF-S primes instead. I won’t be buying the PC-Es.

Blog Admin

There is still hope for primes AF-S – just because we don’t have a solid rumor doesn’t mean they will not release any.

http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

We may START to see more primes as soon as this alleged July 1st announcement. But it COULD take up to a year or two to get EVERY fast prime updated, that’s all I’m saying… Not that they’ll wait a year and then announce everything at once, no.

=Matt=

Rob

So, one thing I’d like to know, is there still a d10 rumour if Nikon is admitting to the d700 rumour?

If so what would be the difference? I know its all speculation but how do the two rumours compare?

Blog Admin

The D10 was based on one photo and several written sources. For D700 we had multiple, more reliable sources (both pics and text). D700 looks more realistic to me. D10 sounds more like an entry level camera.

http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

D10 is just a different rumor name for the D700. People were calling it the D10 (and making up fake pics etc.) ONLY because of the MB-D10 battery grip that is seemingly mis-named for the D300. Nikon usually names grips after the bodies they’re made for.

I guess the deal with the MB-D10 and the D700 is, Nikon simply picked an arbitrary number, 10, that they think they’ll never give to an actual camera body. (Like the MB-40 for the F6..)

=Matt=

Rob

Thanks, makes sense and that’s what I thought, but still wanted to confirm.

CarboyZR1

Although my knowledge of cameras is very big, I have owned a Nikon D200 with the 18-200mm lens for about a year. The lens very amazing and when I got it, there was a big waiting list for the lens, which tells me it was popular and top of the line. I mean there is no substitute and is the best of the best in my opinion.

CarboyZR1

My knowledge of cameras is very small I mean.

Mike

No offense, but primes (with the exception of very long telephotos) have been out of vogue for many years with pro shooters. People who’s opinions count, like Joe McNally, Moose Peterson, Joel Sartore, etc almost never use primes except when they need to dig out the 600mm F4. So, in other words, don’t hold your breath for a prime revamping, with F1.2s etc because I doubt it’s going to happen. With all respect, it’s mostly weekend warriors and well-heeled amateurs who use primes these days.

Blog Admin

I think it is the other way around: the weekend warriors go with the zooms, pro go with primes. Anyone agrees with me? Should we do a poll?

http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

Mike, it depends on what “professional” photographic scene you are talking about. For landscape, nature and wildlife photography, indeed the ONLY time I’d ever consider a prime is for macro. Even fisheye lenses come in zoom form now! Other than that, I’m all zooms, all the time. In fact I’d rather have f/4 than f/2.8, to save weight. (I suppose if I shot more wildlife some day, I might covet a 300 2.8 or something, of course…)

However, for my WORK- weddings, events and portraits- f/2.8 is a bare minimum, f/1.8 or 1.4 is nice, and f/1.2 is golden. A creamy blurred background will ALWAYS be in vogue. Just check out work by any of today’s high-end wedding photographers. They are the ones obsessed with the Canon 85 1.2 and 50 1.2, and the 35 1.4 or 24 1.4…

So again, it just depends on what you shoot. Historically, Nikon has indeed been catering mostly towards outdoor professionals, adventure photographers, etc. So you might be right that Nikon may never emphasize fast AF primes. But it really would be a shame considering Nikon’s history of making legendary fast-apeture glass. If Nikon does NOT ever update these fast-apeture lenses, they will be forever conceding a LOT of business to Canon…

=Matt=

http://www.xanga.com/matthewsaville Matthew Saville Photography

I think it has less to do with being pro or not, and more to do with simple experience / wisdom. Anyone with lots of experience, professional or weekend shooter, will simply know which lens they need for which task, period. And sometimes you need a fast prime, sometimes a fast zoom, sometimes a lightweight zoom is best. It just depends on what the job is. A LOT of pros rely on Nikon’s 2.8 zooms as their bread-and-butter lenses. I know that for weddings, I couldn’t live without my Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX. Even though I’m ALSO dying to get the Sigma 50 1.4. Likewise, I’m totally in love with my Sigma 50-150 2.8, even though I also love the Nikon 85 1.4…

Different situations require or lend themselves to different lenses. For some jobs I won’t even bother bringing primes, I’ll just roll with a body and a zoom, or two bodies and two zooms. For some jobs, I may need nothing but the D300 + 85 1.4.

The SAME goes for goofing around on the weekends with friends- different situations lend themselves to different lenses.